>From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: E-1 discussion
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:48:15 +0800
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stephen Scharf" <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> >>problem is the 10D color does not look as good as the E-1 even with the
>> >>excellent C1 RAW convertor.
>>
>> I don't agree with CH on this-he's entitled to his viewpoint as I am
>> mine, and granted the perception of color is to some (possibly large)
>> degree subjective, but I love the color of C*n*n's CMOS sensor based
>> cameras;I prefer it to CCD based cameras including the E-1's which is
>> still quite nice, butIMHO, doesn't hold a candle to the CMOS sensors.
>
>It is not only my personal experience, some pro and non pro friend of mine
>don't like the CMOS sensor. No doubt that most of the C*non fans I know like
>it very much.
yes, well, as we will agree, much of our preferences for color are
subjective, as it were.
><SNP>
>To me, for 10D it was always RAW+PhaseOne, no other option, the JPEG is too
>bad. For E-1 so far all all shots on my web are JPEG and NO color
>adjustment, only contrast by level and curve.
I would agree with you on JPEGs from my 1D, but in general I find the
JPEGs from my D60 to be quite pleasing. It all comes down to control
over white balance. The 10D was not noted for great Auto White
Balance. Here' s a suggestion: Next time you shoot with your 10D,
shoot a few frames in JPEG/ Large Fine and create a custom white
balance, and then shoot your subjects. See if that helps JPEG
quality, my guess is it will.
>You may see the CMOS color is good, it all depends on your objects, for car
>racing it will be fine. But for people and macro I like E-1 much more.
>
>They are all shot with JPEG, normal color saturation, no color adjust in PS
>only contrast, do they look flat?
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/E1.htm
With all due respect, CH, yes, they do a bit, at least some of them
do. And they show a slight color cast, too. I took the liberty of
downloading one of your nice E-1 flower portraits, and running it
through my post-production workflow. A quick survey with levels
reveals no true black until level 17, and no true white until level
232-235, or thereabouts. Using these as guidelines, I gave your image
a levels tweak, and then remapped the image to neutral with the info
palette and a numeric remapping with Curves. White point was set at
245 to leave room for specular highlights, and black point was set at
16. The info pallet revealed a somewhat yellow cast, as Red and Green
were somewhat over-represented relative to blue.
I have uploaded a before and after example for your review.
http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/olympuse1photos/websize/FlowerCH.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/olympuse1photos/websize/FlowerNeutral.jpg
Bear in mind that I am viewing these images on a La Cie Electron Blue
IV Color Reference CRT monitor calibrated with a Gretag-Macbeth
Eye-One Display to a color temperature of D65 and a monitor gamma of
2.2. Your mileage may vary, especially if your monitor is set to a
color temperature notably higher.
I ran this exercise to simply show that *all* cameras have their
inaccuracies when you get into the fine numbers (and digital imaages
are nothing but numbers), so to state the color of one camera is
worse than another without running a meaningful and neutral
post-production workflow I personally find to be a bit misleading.
What I am saying rather long-windedly is that both the 10D and the
E-1 can produce beautiful color with appropriate post, but they might
look a bit different before post-processing, and that one person
might prefer one over another due to their personal biases as to what
looks good. Neither would be neutral, but what one is experiencing is
a bias for a "coloration". This is comparable to one person's
preference for Velvia slide film over Provia, or vice versa.
><snip>
>
>> also suffers notably from balky autofocus, slow write times, some
>> poor design and ergonomic features, and unacceptable levels of
> > noise. I think it's a quite a good first attempt, but it's not a
>> knockout, and I find some things wanting about it.
>
>Poor ergonomic? how?
I don't care for all the little buttons scattered all over the camera.
>Noise is high but better than ISO100 slides that I used
>to, it is ok for me. Write time is slow but 100% faster than 10D! What do
>you need? My 10D wirte a RAW at 5-6S with Ultra II Scandisk, the E-1 less
>than 3S. I agree the auto focus of E-1 is not that good but fast auto focus
>is not my major concern.
The 10D likely takes longer to write RAW files than the E-1 because
the files from it's 6.3 megapixel sensor is notably larger than the
E-1's 5 megapixel sensor.
Cheers,
Stephen.
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
